On-line training – quality? value?

I understand that BOA evaluated them and they weren’t quite the benchmark folks have been led to believe.  Maybe someone from BOA can add further and provide the name of the selected vendor.  It was for GB training.  I am concerned about doing BB training in a remote format.

Six sigma training has been most successful in my opinion because it incorporated break out activities that drove the learning, and provided an opportunity for people to work together as a team in a class room environment. I can tell you as a hiring manager that I would pass on a resume that had “e-learning” as the certifying body. Black Belts are supposed to be change agents and facilitators, two things you’ll never get on-line. Adult learners only retain 5% of lecture, sadly e-learning that is available today doesn’t give the interaction needed to learn. I don’t mind e-learning for GB and Below.
Lastly, someone in this post mentioned certification exam. I personally throw away most resumes that say ASQ certified because I know that ASQ certifies people that have never operated as a BB. I’ll keep the resume if i see some real world application and experience. If you really want to be a BB, take a course that is in the classroom with a minimum of 3wks, and then go out and apply it. The training/certification without the proof of application is worthless no matter what type of training you take

Enterprise learning industry data shows that blended approaches are delivering the leanest learning systems. But, the truly successful blended learning implementations involve integrating classroom, online, Podcasts, etc. in ways that deliver content approporiate to each format or medium. Having ready access to searchable d-bases allow learners to access materials for review months/years after they leave class, too.
With complex subject matter, which Lean/Six Sigma can be for many people from non-engineering b/g’s, classroom (including interactive distance learning models) is/are always going to be part of it. It’s a better use of training resources and students time to be able focus on application based activitys while in class. 
We’ve had several great outcomes if you’d like to benchmark trends – can provide some industry data too.
 
 
 

I’ve recently converted my Black Belt training to a blended model—online and in-class instruction.  When I measure the retention of the two models—in-class instruction only vs. blended training, the retention of our Black Belts (measured via closed book exam) increased 22% with blended training–a significant increase.  This is in line with a Meta Analysis where 96 independent studies were evaluated that encompassed both corporate & academia classes and over 19,000 students that showed a 20% increase in retention when students took a blended class vs. the traditional classroom instruction.  Also, 85% of my students enjoy the online training because of its flexibility—learn at your own pace, when you want and spend as much time on a topic as necessary.   When you add the fact it saves the company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in travel cost, I don’t see a real negative in blended training; in fact, it’s the future. 
 
Traditional training is fast-pace, requires large amounts of time in one’s schedule and has a large variability between instructors.  In the old way we taught Black Belt training (4, 1-week classes separated by 4 weeks), by Thursday morning, the learners had more than enough information—their minds were saturated.  Also, many times learners would leave the class to take care of a urgent mater with no mechanism to ensure the learner was taught the material he or she missed.  Finally, we like to hone our MBB’s skills by assigning them to teach Black Belt classes.  Not everyone can teach well, and many times learners are left with a less than desirable instructor.
 
If the training is set up properly, blended training is the most effective and efficient way to train.  Six Sigma training is not immune to what Six Sigma requires from the business—cost reduction and continuous improvement.  Most negative arguments I’ve heard about blended training have not been supported by data.  It’s funny that a profession that demands data-based decision is driven by opinions.  I believe, in light of such overwhelming data, if Six Sigma chooses not to pursue blended training, it loses its morale authority to require others to change with less data.
 
Douglas Evans
Director, Six Sigma TrainingQuest Diagnostics